Judgment sc-1988-2-1087-1097

PUNJAB HIGHER QUALIFIED TEACHERS UNION A (NON-PETITIONERS) & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 1988 B IA.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

) Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-C/assification for purposes of revision of pay-Punjab Educational Services Class Ill School Cadre Rules 1955, Rule 10--Graduate teachers falling in Cate- gory B Group II-Form class by themselves-Cannot be subjected to J. ~urther requirement of having JST/JAV training for entitlement to c f "higher pay scale.

Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules 1955: Rule 10 and State Government Circular dated July 23, 1957-Category B Group II JBT teachers-Whether entitled to higher pay scale on acquiring higher educational qualifications of B.A., B.T./B.A .. B. Ed-Expression 'plus JAV training'-Interpretation of.

The State Government by Circular dated July 23, 1957 directed revision of the existing pay scales of various categories of subordinate staff including Teachers in the Education Department. Paragraph 3 of the said circular provided for revision of pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct categories, Category A and Category B and laid down the requirements of academic qualification with respect to each of them. Category B was further sub-divided into two groups viz: F \#.Group I- Matric with Basic training (including Junior Teachers).

Group II- Junior School Teachers (including Assistant Mistresses with BA/lnter/Matric plus JAV training).

On more occasions than one, this Court intervened on behalf of G ""-· those Teachers who had ill!proved or acquired higher academic qualifi- ,,.. cations and were denied higher scales of pay, and issued directions for extending the benefit of para 3 of the aforesaid Circular.

In compliance with the directions of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., the Director of Public Instructions (Schools) H 1087 J

1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 2 S.C.R.

A by Order dated June 30, 1986 accorded sanction to payment of arrears of pay to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I, to 3600 JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II who had improved their educational qualifications and acquired degrees in B.A., B.T.f1'.A., B.Sc., B.Ed. etc. Similar relief was however denied to 6,000 other Teachers falling in Category B Group II on the ground that they did not B have requisite professional training of JST/JAV, and were therefore not entitled to the higher grade.

c In the Writ Petitions to this Court, by the Matricalate Junior Basic Trained Teachers In Governmeiit Schools placed in Category B, Group II of the Circular dated July 23, 1957 it was contended that the State Government was bound to grant the benefit of higher grade of pay / to all the Teachers belonging to Category B Group II on their improving,~ - or acquiring higher educational qualifications as and from the respec· · tive dates of their passing the examination, and that·it was not open to the Government on the pretext of verification of claims to confine the relief to some of the teachers and deny the same to the others who were D all similarly situated and recruited in the same manner and appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had improved their qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A., B. T. etc., and that the so-called professional training i.e. JST /JAV could not be made a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher pay.

E These petitions were contested by the State Government by con· tending that the petitioners were not entitled to higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualifications as they did not stand the eligibility test on verification of their _claims, and that according to paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their qualifica· - tions were placed into two broad categories for purposes of revision of pay, Category A consisting of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc. (Agriculture) and BT, and Category B of whom Group I was 'Matric with basic \. -< training (Including JBT)'. ~

On the question: whether JBT Teachers falling under Category B t ...v

Group II were not entitled to the higher pay merely on their acquiring higher Educational Qualifications of B.A., B.T.fB.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional experience of JST /JA V training was essential. " ' -~ Allowing the Writ Petitions, ' BELD: 1. Graduate Teachers form a class by themselves and cannot be subjected to the further requirement of having JST/JAV

PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUN'AB [SEN, J.] 1089

training. The words 'plus JAV training' clearly qualify the work 'Matric' and relate only two Matriculate JBT Teachers. Such a classi- A fication for revision of pay satisfies the touchstone of Article 14, and would render the action of the State Government in seeking to discriminate between Graduate Teachers with JST /JA V training and Graduate Teachers with or without such training, impermissible as the attempt is to create a class within a class without any rational B basis. [1095D-FJ

2Copy pinpoint2. It is regrettable that despite clear pronouncements made by this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions there is no redressaJ of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to Category B \ Group II although they had acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. quali- C f'~cations. [1095F-G]

3Copy pinpoint3. The petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category B Group II, are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or improving their ""I ' academic qualifications. The respondents are directed to give them the higher scale of pay as admissible to Teachers in Category B Group D ,,,J I with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the quali- fication. [1097B-C I

State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpa/ Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1976] l SCR 529; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha & Ors., (C.A. Nos. 926-27/77 decided on August 7, 1979); andAvtar Singh v. Manmo- E han Singh & Anr., (C.A. No. 3790/83 decided on September 14, 1984, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 63 & \. 449 of 1986 etc. F (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

. • A.K. Ganguli, A. Sharan and G.S. Chatterjee for the Peti- tioners .

R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. G _:) "' The J udgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This is a batch of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B, Group II in H

1-

•j

\;i 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 2 S.C.R. 1· A terms of paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular dated July 23, 1957 who have been continuously and unrelentlessly struggling to get ".. r'

the benefit of higher grade of pay on their improving or acquiring higher qualification viz. B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed./Matric with JST/ Gyani or Prabhakar, as per the terms thereof, and the persistent re- l fusal of the State Government to adhere to the terms of the said B Circular mainly on the ground that such teachers on their improving or acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service would ~ not automatically be placed in different grades commensurate with their academic qualifications unless they had the professional qualifi- cation of requisite experience of a post carried in the higher grade irrespective of the number of posts available in the department in that category. It is asserted that the aforesaid Circular was couched in ) - c somewhat ambiguous language and has resulted in different interpre-, ~ tations and it was never the intention of the Government to undertake the continuing unintended heavy financial burden that had arisen be- cause of the faulty drafting of the Circular.

D It is common ground that by the aforesaid Circular dated July 23, 1957 the State Government directed revision of the existing pay scales of various categories of subordinate offices including Teachers in the "' Education Department. Paragraph 3 thereof provided for revision of pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct categories, namely, Category A and Category B and inter alia laid down the

- E requirement of academic qualifications with respect to each. The relevant part of paragraph 3 reads as follows:

"3. Teachers in the Education Department: It has been decided that all teachers according to their qualifications should be placed in the following two broad categories: < F CATEGORY 'A' ~( """ .. /

B.A./B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc. (Agriculture)/and B.T./Diploma I in Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training.

G CATEGORY 'B' • Group 1-Matrics with Basic Training (including Junior Teachers) "" Group II-Junior School Teachers (including Assistant !'"

H Mistresses with B.A./lnter/Matric plus J .A. V. Training)."

PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB (SEN, J.J 1091

It is quite evident that the revision of pay of Teachers was based A on the principle of linking pay to qualification. It would not be out of place to mention that the Kothari Commission constituted by the State Government of Punjab considered in great detail the scales of pay of Teachers. The Commission strongly expressed the view that the scales of pay of Teachers should be linked to educational qualifications. Accepting the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, the State B Government of Haryana in 1968 directed further revision of scales of pay of Teachers working in Government Schools w.e.f. December 1, 1967.

" On more occasions than one, this Court had to intervene on behalf of these unfortunate Teachers for the redressal of the wrong C \ done to them by denial of higher scales of pay on their improving or ··-l .acquiring higher academic qualifications and issued directions for ex- . tending the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to them. Despite the repeated directions, the State Government has been adamant in not complying with such directions on one pretext or another. In State of. Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., (1976] 1SCR529 this D Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., (1972] SLR 402 directing that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A. B.Ed. qualifications would be entitled to the higher scale of pay. The Court construed the aforesaid Circular as falling within the ambit of r. 10 of the Punjab· Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 as to the E entitlement of higher scales of pay and held that it had the effect of fixing the scale of pay on the basis of academic qualifications. It was accordingly held that Teachers who possessed the degree of B.T. or the eguivalent on May 1, 1957 would be entitled to scales of pay commensurate with such higher qualification, and as to the Teachers > who acquired such higher qualification thereafter, they would be F ,. entitled to their revised scale of pay w.e.f. the date they passed the 'r-.,J, examination. It categorically repelled the contention on behalf of the . .Government that there could be no automatic revision of the scales of pay dependent upon the higher qualifications and unequivocally held that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications became entitled to the revised scales of pay according to Category A w.e.f. the G date they passed the examination in terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular.

In Labh Singh Garcha & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (W.P. No. 1810/76 decided on July 20, 1976), Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for himself and Surinder Singh, J. allowed the writ petition filed by H

-----------------·----------,

p. 1092

1\ JBT Teachers falling in Category B wh~ claimed the benefit of highe"( scales of pay as done in the case of Graduate Teachers in Categroy A pursuant to the High Court's decree in Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case. The Court found that the al:tion of the Government in denying to the JBT Teachers who had acquired or improved their educational qualifica- B tion, the benefit of the higher scales of pay, was per se discriminatory and accordingly issued a direction to the State Government to rele~ to them the reVised scales of pay admissible to them in terms of ' paragraph 3 of the Circular. The State .Government carried an appeal to this Court. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha & Ors., (C.A. Nos. 926-27n7 decided on August 7, 1979) this Court held that the matter was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in c Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case and observed that 'no new point arises' and, accordingly dismissed the appeal. .~

The State Government having failed to carry out the directions issued, the JBT Teachers with higher qualifications were constrained to move the High Court for contempt but it declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the Teachers came up in appeal. At the hearing of Avtar Singh v. Manmohan ·Singh & Anr., (C.A. 3790/83 decided on, September 14, 1984), the Court indicated that the view taken by th't High Court did not commend to it and wanted learned counsel for the State Government to ascertain the attitude of the Government. At his request, the matter was adjourned. At the resumed hearing, h~ signified the willingness of the State Government to comply with the directions given by this Court. The Court accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the State Government to ·-implement the order passed in Labh Singh Garcha's case within three months, holding that the appellants and other petitioners in the Hi~ F .· Court and Teachers similarly situate i.e. JBT Teachers with higher ··, qualifications, were entitled to the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circu- '--.. °' Jar. It pointed out that the Director of public Instructions (Schools), ... Punjab by her affidavit dated Februafy 5, 1980 ,had unconditionally agreed to implement the same without any reservation. As regards - such Teachers who had not approached the Court but were similarly situate, the Court directed that they must make an application for seeking benefit of the aforesaid Circular. . . . By a clarificatory order dated February 21, 1985, the Court ·+ --- ·clarified that every Teacher entitled to the benefit of the earlier order may make an application within six weeks from that date. It however made a direction to the following effect: ·

PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB ISBN, J.] 1093

"In .the application the teacher should strive as best she/he could to set out his claim as directed herein. The Director may verify the claim with reference to record he may have and the eligibility for relief. But if the claim is of a teacher who was a petitioner in this Court or in the High Court, eligibility enquiry is impermissible, only amount of claim may be verified. The Director of Education shall process all the applications received by him in the manner he thinks fit but he must make the payment within three months from the date of the receipt of the application."

Emphasis sµpplied

\ In compliance therewith the Director of Public Instructions c -f '-(Schools), Punjab by order dated 30th June, 1986 accorded sanction to make payment of arrears of pay according to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I, to 3,600 JBT Teachers falling in Category B Group II who had improved their educational qualifications and acquired degrees in B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., but denied similar D relief to other 6,000 Teachers falling in Category B Group II i.e. the petitioners, on the ground that they did not have the requisite profes- sional training of JST/JAV and therefore not entitled to the higher grade. The impugned order proceeds on the premise that eligibility for the claim for JST grade which was a higher grade, did not depend upon acquiring a higher educational qualification ofB.A., B.T. etc, but also E

.. to having the requisite professional training i.e. JST/JAV training and further that a higher grade was only allowed to the then existing JST Teachers which was a diminishing cadre at)d since recruitment to that cadre had been stopped, there was no question of any entitlement of such Teachers to acquiring the necessary professional training. In other words, the Government has adopted the stand that the right of the JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II to the higher scale admissible to Teachers placed in Category B Group I could not simply be based on their educational qualification.

In support of these petitions Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, with infinite care took us through all the orders referred to above and rightly submitted that the State Govern- ment having given an undertaking in Avtar Singh's case that they are prepared to carry out the directions made by the High Court, they are bound to grant the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to all the Tea<;hers belonging to Category B Group II entitled to the higher gra_de of pay on their acquiring or improving their qualification, as. H

p. 1094

A from the respective dates of their passing the examination. He further 'f,'.:' l submitted that it was not open to the Government on the pretext of verification of claims to confine the relief to some of the teachers and ~ deny the same to the others who were all similarly situate, recruited in the same manner and appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had improved their qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A., B.T. etc. B and the so-called professional training i.e. JST/JAV could not be made a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher pay. t-" In reply Shri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State Govern- ment, with his usual fairness accepted that the Government was bound by the undertaking given inAvtar Singh's case but contended that even C so, the petitioners were not entitled to such higher pay as they did no! stand the eligibility test on verification of their claims merely on thei; J acquiring higher educational qualification. He pointed out that accord~ ing to paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their · qualifications were placed into two broad categories for purposes of revision of pay, Category A consisting of B.A/B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc D (Agriculture) and BT, and Category B consisting of 4 groups of whom Group I was 'Matrics with basic training (including JBT)'. There were three scales of pay in Category B-Lower Rs.60-120, Middle Rs.120- 175 and Upper Rs.140-200. By way of incentive, it was directed that posts falling in these grounds wo11ld be in the following proportion- Group I, Lower Scale 85%, Middle Scale 15%. 15% of Teachers in E this group had to be straightway promoted to the Middle Scale by selection based on seniority and merit, while the rest were given the Lower Scale. The scale of Rs.60-120 was later revised to Rs.125-300, ., that of Rs.120-175 to Rs.150-300 and that of Rs.140-200 to Rs.480-880 w.e.f. lst November, 1966, 16th July, 1975 and lst January, 1978. In contrast, Junior Secondary Trained/Junior Anglo-Vernacular F Teachers with JST/JAV teachers training qualifications were placed in Category B Group II and their pay-scale was not revised. The then~ existing incumbents in this category were allowed to retain their exist- . . ·. ing pay-scale of Rs.80-250 which was subsequently revised from time _ to time as per conditions of their service. As a diminishing cadre, they were therefore carried on a protected pay-scale of B.A., B.T. G Teachers viz. Rs.620-1200. According to the learned courisel, the ' question before the Court is whether JBT Teachers placed in Category • JI B Group II have to be given the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.620- •

1200. This, he says, cannot be done as these Teachers were not entitled' to initial scale of Rs.80-250 meant only for Junior Secondary Trained/ Junior Anglo-Vernacular Teachers with JST/JAV training qualifica- H tion i.e. Teachers governed by the protected category. At the hearing

PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB !SEN, J.] 1095

we directed the State Government to clarify its stand on the eligibility A test of Category B Group II Teachers to higher pay. The Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Pubjab and the Deputy Director (School Admn), Office of the Director of Public Instructions have accordingly filed their additional affidavits dated lOth November, 1986 and 9th March, 1987. The petitioners have also placed on record their written submissions in answer to these additional affidavit. B i The controversy is now limited to the question whether JBT 1 .., Teachers falling under Category B Group II are not entitled to the ' higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualification of B.A. B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional experi- ence of JST/JAV training was essential. That must tum on the relevant C \clause in paragraph 3 relating to them which may be extracted below: -{ . "Category 'B' Group II-Junior School Teachers (includ- ing Assistant Mistresses with B.R./lnterjMatric plus J.A.V. Training)." D As a matter of plain construction, we are quite clear in our mind that Graduate Teachers form a class by themselves and cannot be ::::I subjected to the further requirement of having JST/JAV training. The words 'plus JAV training' clearly qualify the word 'Matric' and relate only to Matriculate JBT Teachers. Such a classification for revision of pay satisfies the touchstone of Art. 14 and would render the action of E i

- the State Government in seeking to discriminate between Graduate Teachers with JST/JAV training and Graduate Teachers with or with- out such training, impe1missible as the attempt is to create a class ,.,; within a class without any rational basis.

We must accordingly uphold contention of the petitioners that F they are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or improving their ~~academic qualification. It is regrettable that despite clear pronounce- ments made by this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions starting with Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case, there is no redressal of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II > although they had acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications. G Quite recently, in Chaman Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987) 3 SCC 113, Chinnappa Reddy, J. has considered the question in some depth. The learned Judge repelled the contention of the State Govern- ment of Haryana based on its order dated Sth September, 1979 which was sought to. be interpreted to mean that the Teachers who had acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. qua!ification subsequent to lst December, H

1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R, ,. A 1967, the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before Sth September, 1979, would be entitled-to the higher grade but w.e.f. Sth I September, 1979 only and that those wbo acquired the qualification subsequent to tbat date would not be entitled to the higher grade. According to the High Court in that case, the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order that Teachers who acquired B.T. or B B.Ed. qualification should get the higher grade and that a concession was shown in 1979 enabling the Teachers who acquired the B.T. or I B .Ed. qualification be~een 1968 and 1979 to get the higher scale from j

c

1979. This Court held that the view taken by the High Court could not be sustained and observed:

"The principle that pay should be linked to qualification was accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 a,nd when ) - Kirpal Singh Bhatia case was argued in the High Court and""-"r in the Supreme Court there was not the slightest whisper that tlie principle had been departed from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order expressly stated that the government had accepted the Kothari Commission's report in regard to scales of pay and as already pointed out by us ~ the main feature of the Kothari Commissinn's report in regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification. That was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case. Even subsequently when several writ petitions were disposed of by the High t Court of Punjab and Haryana and when the government issued consequential orders, it was never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from the principle of qualifica- tion linked pay." - F The Learned !udge then said:

"The 1968 order must be read in the light of the 1957 orde~--<­ and the report of the Kothari Commission which was accepted. If so read there can be no doubt that the govern- ment never intended to retract from the principle that G teachers acquiring the BT or BEd would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. The 1979 order was indeed ..( superfluous. There was no need for any special sanction for the grant of Master's grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed BA, BEd. That was already the position ._

- ' -

H when obtained both as a result of the 1957 and 1968 orders

( PUNJAB 1EACHERS UNION v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SEN, J.] 1Q97

and the several judgments of the court. We do not think A that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in · departing from the rule in the judgment under appeal. The rule had been well established and consistently acted upon. Nor was it open to the government to act upon the principle in some cases and depart from it in other cases." B The result therefore is that the writ petitions succeed and are f allowed with costs. We direct the respondents to give to the petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category B Group II, the higher scale of -i pay admissible to Teachers in Category B Group I, they having ....,.. acquired the qualification of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification. C

-(~.V.K. Petitions allowed.

f